The Heat aren't comparable to the Bulls. The Bulls pieces fit together perfectly. Plus, they had the best coach ever. I've never felt the Heat really went together, but LeBron and Wade are so ****ing good it doesn't really matter. If you could do a time machine series the Bulls win with ease IMO.

And I am saying that even from here on out, stats aren't going to tell you the full story. You can selectively pull statistics to tell any story. As an example, I gave you a stat that said MJ has hit 50% of his game winners. LeBron is about 1/3 and Kobe's is even less.

I'm not selectively pulling stats out. These are the same objective stats that show MJ to be the greatest that's ever played the game (and yet LeBron is still right there with him).

Also, win shares take into account multiple factors and the entirety of a player's contribution on the court. It's not exactly like cherry picking a game winner or PPG stat.

Quote:

It absolutely makes a difference because LeBron had a 3 year head start on MJ. Statistically that matters. Like I said, LeBron may be further along now at 28 than MJ was, but that's not even what matters.

It's the only thing that matters if you're talking about comparing LeBron and Michael Jordan (because it's absurd to do it any other way, MJ's career overall obviously is better than LeBron's is to this point). LeBron is AHEAD of where MJ was as a pro at the same age. Only time will tell whether LeBron can match the 2nd half of MJ's ridiculous career, but if there's anybody that's going to do it, it will be him.

The Heat aren't comparable to the Bulls. The Bulls pieces fit together perfectly. Plus, they had the best coach ever. I've never felt the Heat really went together, but LeBron and Wade are so ****ing good it doesn't really matter. If you could do a time machine series the Bulls win with ease IMO.

The point was that they're both "Super Teams." In fact, most of the teams that win championships in this league could be qualified as that. You need multiple stars in most cases to get it done in addition to very good role players.

I'm not selectively pulling stats out. These are the same objective stats that show MJ to be the greatest that's ever played the game (and yet LeBron is still right there with him).

Also, win shares take into account multiple factors and the entirety of a player's contribution on the court. It's not exactly like cherry picking a game winner or PPG stat.

I am not saying you are selectively pulling stats out. I am talking about how you over-rely on stats that only tell a part of the story, and then treat it as gospel. MJ is the greatest player of all time for a lot of reasons statistics just can't describe.

Quote:

It's the only thing that matters if you're talking about comparing LeBron and Michael Jordan (because it's absurd to do it any other way, MJ's career overall obviously is better than LeBron's is to this point). LeBron is AHEAD of where MJ was as a pro at the same age. Only time will tell whether LeBron can match the 2nd half of MJ's ridiculous career, but if there's anybody that's going to do it, it will be him.

Yes, time will tell. But again... the measure of who the best player of all time is, will be, if you could sign MJ or LeBron to a long-term contract of the same dollar value, which would you sign? I think it is going to be very, very hard for LeBron to be the guy that eclipses Jordan on the front. It's not going to be based on statistics, where LeBron is undoubtedly going to shatter a ton of records.

The point was that they're both "Super Teams." In fact, most of the teams that win championships in this league could be qualified as that. You need multiple stars in most cases to get it done in addition to very good role players.

I'm not sure how you're defining a super team. Pippen was a super teammate.

Paxson, Grant, and Cartwright rounded out the roster. All of them were solid role players. None of them would be considered to be "super." Think you're really overrating most of Jordan's supporting casts, which were usually loaded with role players like BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, and John Paxson.

I'm not sure how you're defining a super team. Pippen was a super teammate.

Paxson, Grant, and Cartwright rounded out the roster. All of them were solid role players. None of them would be considered to be "super." Think you're really overrating most of Jordan's supporting casts, which were usually loaded with role players like BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, and John Paxson.

I am not saying you are selectively pulling stats out. I am talking about how you over-rely on stats that only tell a part of the story, and then treat it as gospel. MJ is the greatest player of all time for a lot of reasons statistics just can't describe.

Stats allow us to compare the two players on equal footing and allow a story to be told about the two players without having to rely on memory or mythologizing (and without being impacted by nostalgia or their respective media images). It's a fair, objective, and unbiased way to compare.

When an argument boils down to MJ is the greatest player of all time just because he is, it doesn't work. It's not some kind of self-evident fact, it needs to be proven like anything else (or else you wind up looking like some Yankees fans who baselessly believe Jeter is the greatest SS to ever play). MJ's stats and his obviously his team's titles make that argument work, just as LeBron's (wherever he ends up with) will do the same at the end of his career.

Stats allow us to compare the two players on equal footing and allow a story to be told about the two players without having to rely on memory or mythologizing (and without being impacted by nostalgia or their respective media images). It's a fair, objective, and unbiased way to compare.

When an argument boils down to MJ is the greatest player of all time just because he is, it doesn't work. It's not some kind of self-evident fact, it needs to be proven like anything else (or else you wind up looking like Yankees fans who baselessly believe Jeter is the greatest SS to ever play). MJ's stats and his obviously his team's titles make that argument work, just as LeBron's (wherever he ends up with) will do the same at the end of his career.

Stats are good for comparing players that play in the same time frame they are useless to compare players of a different generation.

Joe Montana is considered by many the GOAT NFL QB but his stats are pretty shitty compared to the QB's that play today. But all he did was win, like MJ did. In fact neither of them lost a championship game like others have (Brady, Lebron or Kobe..)

Stats allow us to compare the two players on equal footing and allow a story to be told about the two players without having to rely on memory or mythologizing (and without being impacted by nostalgia or their respective media images). It's a fair, objective, and unbiased way to compare.

When an argument boils down to MJ is the greatest player of all time just because he is, it doesn't work. It's not some kind of self-evident fact, it needs to be proven like anything else (or else you wind up looking like some Yankees fans who baselessly believe Jeter is the greatest SS to ever play). MJ's stats and his obviously his team's titles make that argument work, just as LeBron's (wherever he ends up with) will do the same at the end of his career.

The idea that they should be compared apples to apples based on a bunch of statistics is completely inaccurate.

Joe Montana never ONCE threw for over 4,000 yards in a single season. Marino did it 5 times (and almost did it two times after that). Ben Roethlisberger has an absolutely atrocious TD to INT ratio compared to a lot of playoff QBs.

Tim Duncan has only led the league in Rebounds once. And never led the league in points. Does that mean he wasn't a good player? LeBron is probably a better defender than Jordan. Does that get factored in? Jordan smokes pretty much every player ever when it comes to game winning shots. Does that get factored in? What about leadership? How does that rank statistically? Supporting cast -- we're already getting into subjective arguments about which supporting cast is better.

Nobody relies purely on statistics. Otherwise, Karl Malone and Kareem would be put ahead of even MJ. The true benchmark is that if you were to start a franchise today and could sign one player to the same dollar contract, by career end, who would you take? Again, LeBron is going to have to do more than produce and win a few rings to beat out Jordan on that, and it's going to have to be more than just padding the stat line.

Stats are good for comparing players that play in the same time frame they are useless to compare players of a different generation.

There is some truth to the idea of it being difficult to compare different generations of sport, but to say that the stats are useless is a complete overstatement. In fact, they're really the only thing that allow us to compare different generations with any kind of accuracy (and again, without the nostalgia/mythologizing of the past).

Quote:

But all he did was win, like MJ did. In fact neither of them lost a championship game like others have (Brady, Lebron or Kobe..)

MJ's Bulls teams lost six consecutive times in the playoffs before they finally won a championship. Remarkably similar to LeBron's teams.